Psam Frank - Sovereign with his own laws and court

[grixit]

I think that the term "consent of the governed" is a bit of a misnomer. I'm all for a social contract as the basis for community, but the truth is that few of us are truly proactive about it. A more realistic phrase would be "acquiescence of the governed".

This consent, or acquiescence, has a lot of inertia. As our Founding Finaglers put it, in between sessions of the purfuit of happineff:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

We've seen what happens when people stop acquiescing. Sometimes you get revolutions, and sometimes you get big election turnovers. But you also get smaller effects. The end of Prohibition is one. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and previous to that, the Warsaw Pact, are others. It wasn't the attempted coup against Gorbochev that did it, nor even a recognition that the structure was irreformable. It was just the recognition that the population was no longer willing to wait for reform.

In the specific case of Poland, a fed up public, instead of taking arms against the government, simply decided to ignore the threats of the government to take arms against them. Furthermore, 10 years before the rise of Solidarnosc, there had been a prequel, a massive outbreak of resistance to an increase in the price of subsidized staples. The increase was cancelled. A news article of the time declared this a true example of the "dictatorship of the proletariate".

In Psam's case, the problem is less whether his system is superior to the current one, but whether there is a significant portion of the population that feels sufficiently oppressed by the current system to consider an alternative.

There isn't.

[Psam]

I’m just wondering if anyone can guess who wrote this, and whether the person who wrote it was a qualified expert on Canadian constitutional law. I’m also wondering if anyone thinks that this is a dissatisfactory way for the Constitution to be interpreted.

While reading it, please note that section 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That’s real and actual law, I believe.

“To establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, two central criteria must be satisfied. First, the objective, which the measures responsible for a limit on a Charter right or freedom are designed to serve, must be ‘of sufficient importance to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom’: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. The standard must be high in order to ensure that objectives which are trivial or discordant with the principles integral to a free and democratic society do not gain s. 1 protection. It is necessary, at a minimum, that an objective relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important.

“Second, once a sufficiently significant objective is recognized, then the party invoking s. 1 must show that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves ‘a form of proportionality test’: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. Although the nature of the proportionality test will vary depending on the circumstances, in each case courts will be required to balance the interests of society with those of individuals and groups. There are, in my view, three important components of a proportionality test. First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair ‘as little as possible’ the right or freedom in question: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., supra, at p. 352. Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of ‘sufficient importance’.”

[Psam]

If the SCC truly respected stare decisis, it would never have formed, because its members would have accepted the systems of laws under which its potential members live.

Hey Pottapaug, since you’ve already forgotten more about law than I will ever know, as you said in a previous comment, I’m just curious if you know what “SCC” stands for. Wanna take a guess?

[Pottapaug1938]

If the SCC truly respected stare decisis, it would never have formed, because its members would have accepted the systems of laws under which its potential members live.

Hey Pottapaug, since you’ve already forgotten more about law than I will ever know, as you said in a previous comment, I’m just curious if you know what “SCC” stands for. Wanna take a guess?

My bad. I was assuming that it was one of your fantasies; and after all, I practiced law in the United States. Thanks for the correction; so I'll restate my premise here:

If the ISS truly respected stare decisis, it would never have formed, because its members would have accepted the systems of laws under which its potential members live.

[Psam]

As far as following stare decisis goes, here is some ratio decidendi from a previous Supreme Court decision: “‘[T]he Canadian tradition’, the majority of this Court held in Reference re Provincial Electoral Boundaries (Sask.), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 158, at p. 186, is ‘one of evolutionary democracy moving in uneven steps toward the goal of universal suffrage and more effective representation’. Since Confederation, efforts to extend the franchise to those unjustly excluded from participation in our political system — such as women, minorities, and aboriginal peoples — have continued, with some success, to the present day.”

Following stare decisis therefore means taking steps to continually evolve the state of society, in uneven steps, toward universal suffrage and more effective representation. Greater enfranchisement and more meaningful participation for every individual is the goal that the Supreme Court has outlined in every section 3 Charter precedent it has made, the above quoted citation being only one of many.

If it is possible that making section 3 Charter rights continuously available might provide more effective representation, then the remedy I am asking is indeed consistent with previous court precedent and therefore entirely in keeping with the principle of stare decisis.

[Psam]

And Pottapaug, since you may not be familiar with Canadian constitutional law, if you read pages 2, 3, and 4 http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... he-Bar.pdf you will see quotations from Supreme Court precedents as well as, at the bottom of page 3, the relevant sections of the Constitution of Canada. I do not wish to convey a lack of respect for your profession, and I ask that you form your opinions based on cited precedent that has been reasonably made known to you, in good faith.

[Burnaby49]

if the courts will not uphold those conditions, then there is no way that humanity can possibly achieve a world that I would be content to live in, so I end my life. This is in no way an immoral choice, and anybody who claims it is has the onus of proving so, conclusively

.

Psams going to kill himself? Again?

No I don’t mean he’s already done it before and is threatening a repeat performance. This is the second time I’ve recorded a psam suicide threat on Quatloos and at least the third time he’s threatened to take the leap. There’s probably more I’m not aware of because of my total indifference to the precise number. The prior time I recorded a solemn psam vow to kill himself was a while ago, almost six years ago to be more exact, as I reported on February 19, 2015 on this thread;

Anyhow Psalm tells us in his new postings that he plans to die fighting for his ideals; the right to vote constantly, daily, hourly! Given the dismally low voter turnouts at even our very infrequent scheduled elections this many not be an idea the electorate is really clamoring for but Psalm feels that a world where you can't vote all day every day isn't a world worth living in. He has a responsibility to the rest of us to up the ante now that he lost at court so he's taking more direct action. He's going to kill himself in a hunger strike unless the government gives him what he wants. An odd kind of hunger strike though, his weapon of choice is maple syrup.

He left a stirring suicide note;

My hunger strike begins on July 1. For the first month, I intend to use maple syrup for sustenance, and drink plenty of water, as well as some juiced vegetables and a couple of sources of fibre to clean my system out. It will basically be more like a cleanse than a hunger strike. On August 1, I will begin rationing out the maple syrup to several tablespoons a day, gradually reducing this amount day by day. By September, I will have reduced the amount of maple syrup to none, and I will subsist entirely on water alone.

This is probably difficult to understand, but if I have to spend the rest of my life being governed by politicians chosen once every four years, then I do not wish to live the rest of my life. I have spent a great deal of time now, since my last hunger strike five years ago, seriously considering whether to make this choice, and I have decided it is time to make it. I have done everything at my disposal to have my laws made the way I wish them to be made, in a way that is fair and respectful, and I have been ignored and mocked by the vast majority of People to whom I have expressed this desire. While I have the utmost gratitude for the People who have allowed Me to experience the interactive electoral system even in the small context where it has been used, my dissatisfaction with the inability of People in general to rise above their indoctrination has left Me with the belief that my wishes for my life will be idly overridden by the vast majority of People in Canada.

I have prepared my will. I leave everything that is mine to the Interactive Sovereign Society. If I do not survive my hunger strike, I am at peace with that. I have had many different experiences in my life, always searching for the right way to live. Now after all of those experiences, I believe I have found the right way that I wish to live. If I will not be allowed to live that way, then I am content that the experiences I have had are enough to have made a life out of.

http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... Strike.pdf

A life well lived! However, as psam has recently been making painfully aware on this discussion he’s still alive and well and and still as tediously, endlessly, verbose as ever. He sounded so resolute in that note, so determined, what persuaded him to remain amongst the living? He left a loophole in his suicide promise in case he got really, really hungry and changed his mind;

I have chosen July 1, 2015 as the date to begin my hunger strike. There are two conditions on which I will end my strike. One is if the number of participants in an interactive electoral system doubles. The other is if a court of the Interactive Sovereign Society (click here for details) orders Me to cease my strike or cease planning my strike. There are presently two organizations that use an interactive electoral system, the Interactive Sovereign Society and the newly formed Interactive Party of Canada. By becoming a member of one of these organizations, You become a registered voter in an interactive electoral system and You can cast a vote to choose the legislative officials (law makers) of those organizations. It is also an opportunity to see if the solution I am proposing is indeed a viable possibility to be used on a larger scale.

So, assuming he just didn’t pack up the idea because of a profound lack of interest by anyone, anywhere, one of two things must have happened;

1 - The number of participants in an interactive electoral system doubles – Neither of the organizations he claims use his electoral system actually exist. They’re nothing more than his little fantasies. There is no Interactive Party of Canada. The only results from a Google search are the suicide note I just quoted and this thread. The Interactive Sovereign Society exists as a fiction he set up in its own web page;

http://issociety.org/

It says he’s been relentlessly pumping out his gibberish since 2010! Happy 10th anniversary psam!

So all that psam needed to do to satisfy this requirement was make up two more imaginary entities that use his electoral system. Not exactly a high bar he’s set for himself. If he’s shown one skill it’s inventing fantasy organizations.

2 - The other is if a court of the Interactive Sovereign Society (click here for details) orders Me to cease my strike or cease planning my strike – Again, not a high hurdle for psam to overcome since the ISS, as I’ve pointed out above, is one of his imaginary organizations. So he could have just daydreamed a fantasy court order telling him he was too important to the future of Canada to contemplate suicide and, with great reluctance, have ended his not yet commenced hunger strike because of his profound respect for the ISS court. No doubt he’ll post a furious rebuttal to that last comment telling us how it’s a real fantasy organization with a real fantasy governance structure and a real fantasy court comprised of real fantasy people and that the ISS court could have chosen not to order him to cease his death by maple syrup. Must have been a real nail-biter waiting for a court order to come out. I’d suggest that any reader thinking that there is an actual International Sovereign Society do what I just did. Google it. You get, in total, a Facebook page created by psam, a Linkedin page created by psam, a few links to obscure websites that psam has salted with pdf files, and my comments here on quatloos.

So I’d say that psam’s suicide threats are just a rhetorical debating device, a way of expressing his total commitment to his idiotic unattainable goals. I’d consider them equivalent to his letter to the Attorney General of British Columbia ‘confessing’ to a crime and daring the province to come after him. It's a way he's chosen to present his world-view to us.

Psam, a suggestion from Burnaby49. That Google search of the Interactive Sovereign society was really just overwhelmingly sad. That’s what you've attained after a decade of effort? Time to cut your losses and move on. But that’s just my opinion. Your convoluted, virtually unreadable Socratic writing style, your absurdly complex and unworkable electoral system dreams, all point back to a nostalgic obsession for your university years as a Political Science major. I earned a Bachelor of Commerce degree specializing in finance and accounting. Not a lot of nostalgic possibilities there.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

No, if you make all the rules then they are ethical by your definition of the word “ethical”. Your reasoning is like saying “I know I’m right, just ask me, I’ll tell you”.

Literally the only reason you give for why your views are "ethical" and mine aren't.

I realise that you are either being wilfully blind or too dumb to see it, but I also see that you have no intention of stopping flogging your dead horse. However, a tip. It's beginning to decompose and is covered in flies.

[Burnaby49]

No, if you make all the rules then they are ethical by your definition of the word “ethical”. Your reasoning is like saying “I know I’m right, just ask me, I’ll tell you”.

Literally the only reason you give for why your views are "ethical" and mine aren't.

I realise that you are either being wilfully blind or too dumb to see it, but I also see that you have no intention of stopping flogging your dead horse. However, a tip. It's beginning to decompose and is covered in flies.

Sadly Owly, I have to disagree with your entire comment. He's not dumb. I've dumped on him a lot here but I've never thought him stupid. He's academically bright but without any common sense or a willingness to accept that he has to deal with how the real world works and has always worked. Instead he's overwhelmingly obsessed with his personal vision of a perfect government structure and a perfectly fair voting system, both guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms but denied us by corrupt governments.

And his dead horse isn't beginning to decompose, covered in flies. There was never a dead horse because there was never a live horse. His ideas were DOA, totally futile from the start.

Well if you don't want me momma, you sure don't have to stall,
Well if you don't want me momma, you sure don't have to stall,
I can get more woman than a passenger train can haul.

Sorry, just finishing off a bottle of wine and listening to Blue Yodel No. 1, 'T For Texas' by Tompall Glasser while typing this. Far more entertaining than psam's nonsense. Getting more women than a passenger train can haul was as much my unobtainable dream as psam's are to him.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Sadly Owly, I have to disagree with your entire comment.

The entire comment? I refer my learned friend to option (a)

I realise that you are either being wilfully blind or too dumb to see it...

However, when it comes to psams use of "ethics" this springs to mind.

[notorial dissent]

I think this pretty much sums up the entirety of Psamy's beliefs and philosophy.

He keeps trying to sell it, and NO ONE is buying, the voting public DON'T want it, so then he then tries to force it off on everyone by going through the courts, and they aren't having any so he FAILS there as well. Actually, speaking of ethics, I think that is the big fail here, his, trying to force his scheme on other people who don't want it, and before he goes any further, the current system is generally accepted by the populace, or they would change it, and that is the fact he refuses to deal with. Essentially, they either like it or like it enough they don't want to change it.

[Pottapaug1938]

And Pottapaug, since you may not be familiar with Canadian constitutional law, if you read pages 2, 3, and 4 http://issociety.org/wp-content/uploads ... he-Bar.pdf you will see quotations from Supreme Court precedents as well as, at the bottom of page 3, the relevant sections of the Constitution of Canada. I do not wish to convey a lack of respect for your profession, and I ask that you form your opinions based on cited precedent that has been reasonably made known to you, in good faith.

Well, I've seen some pretty bad briefs, in my time, and all of them manage to quote case law precedents. I've also seen some very good briefs, filed on the losing side of a case; and they too cite legal precedent. In your case, the remedies seem to be two -- either mobilize enough people behind you such that the British Columbian or Canadian parliaments enact laws which you find more congenial, or file suit in a British Columbian court or the Federal court with more immediate jurisdiction over you (Provincial Court), and appeal any adverse decisions to the next highest court, and see how things work out.

[wserra]

Psam - at least twice, you have edited your posts after someone has responded to them. We don't permit revising history like that. Please stop.

[JamesVincent]

Being ethical or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you have to obey the laws of the land you live in.

See, all I wanted to know was whether or not you believe you are ethical. Thank you for confirming for me that you don’t believe you are ethical. That’s all I wanted to know. That wasn’t so hard, was it?

Since I'm not the one that made the rules you have to live under my statement has nothing to do with me. It does have to do with you since most people would count obeying the law as being an ethical act unless, like another poster pointed out, your definition of ethical is completely off. Maybe you should worry more about you than others. Nice try though. Complete failure, like the rest of your life, but nice try.

I notice you neglected to answer the fact that your little fantasy government is illegal and that you also neglected to answer to running for office to actually make an effective change. From what I've seen of Canadian politics you wouldn't the first screwball in office.

[Burnaby49]

Fine Owly, I stand corrected. Although I'm not sure that psam is being willfully blind. That's a legal term that often crops up in Tax Court cases and implies a deliberate choice, a decision not to look into something that obviously requires investigation.

Willful blindness or Wilful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law,[1]:761 willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or intentional ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which a person seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally keeping themself unaware of facts that would render him or her liable or implicated. In United States v. Jewell, the court held that proof of willful ignorance satisfied the requirement of knowledge as to criminal possession and importation of drugs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness

There may not be anything willful on psam's part about any of this. He may be so obsessed with his fantasy world that he quite literally doesn't see the possibility of another world existing.

[wserra]

In addition to all of the terms listed in the wiki, willful blindness is frequently known as "conscious avoidance". The same principle, but that's probably the most descriptive term. I agree with Burnaby - it's not clear that it applies to Psam.

[Dr. Caligari]

Blue Yodel No. 1, 'T For Texas' by Tompall Glasser

Try the original, by Jimmie Rodgers.

[Burnaby49]

I have it but I'm also fond of Tompall's version.

[Psam]

I’m just wondering if anybody on this forum who is directing derisive contempt at my claim, that periods of time when section 3 Charter rights are not available to be exercised could be construed as denials of section 3 Charter rights in accordance with section 24 of the Charter, has actually read Sauvé v Canada https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 0/index.do, Figueroa v Canada https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do, Frank v Canada https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 6/index.do, and paragraphs 32 and 61 to 69 of Reference re Secession of Quebec https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 3/index.do.

[Pottapaug1938]

I’m just wondering if anybody on this forum who is directing derisive contempt at my claim, that periods of time when section 3 Charter rights are not available to be exercised could be construed as denials of section 3 Charter rights in accordance with section 24 of the Charter, has actually read Sauvé v Canada https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 0/index.do, Figueroa v Canada https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 9/index.do, Frank v Canada https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 6/index.do, and paragraphs 32 and 61 to 69 of Reference re Secession of Quebec https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c ... 3/index.do.

So, Blackstone -- what's your point? You seem to have one -- what do these decisions say which support your illusions?